Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 765 - ITAT COCHINExemption u/s 54F of the Act – Determination of due date - Whether the due date mentioned in section 54F(4) is the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1) or the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act - Held that:- The decision in Prakash Nath Khanna And Another vs CIT [2004 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] followed - due date means the due date for filing the return u/s 139(1) and not 139(4) – the intentions of the Legislature was to permit the assessee to file the return u/s 139(4) also, the use of the expression “section 139” alone would have been sufficed - The Legislature would not have said that it should be filed u/s 139(1) - When the Legislature specifically refers to section 139(1), it cannot be the intention to permit the assessee to file the return u/s 139(4) also - it cannot be said that the Legislature without any purpose or intent specified only the sub-sections (1) and (2) and the conspicuous omission of sub-section (4) has no meaning or purpose behind it - Sub-section (4) of section 139 cannot by any stretch of imagination control the operation of sub-section (1) wherein a fixed period for furnishing the return is stipulated. The judgment of the Apex Court was not considered by the CIT(A) - The assessee also had no occasion to bring this judgment to the notice of the CIT(A) - When Legislature specifically refers only section 139(1) and omitted to refer section 139(4), making a reference to section 139(4) cannot be proper – the matter needs to be reconsidered by the AO in the light of the judgment of Prakash Nath Khanna And Another Vs CIT – thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for reconsideration – Decided in favour of Revenue.
|